Dirty Harry Review

 Number 479 on the top 1000 films of all time is Don Siegel's 1971 action-thriller 'Dirty Harry.'

Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is a San Fransican cop who doesn't play by the rules. He's dirty, but he always gets the job done. However, he meets his match with the psychotic and deadly intelligent "Scorpio" killer - Charles Davis (Andrew Robinson.)

Clint Eastwood has remarkable talent.  I am not referring to his directional ability netting him numerous Oscars, but his talent is starring in great films despite always playing the same character. And that character is a grumpy old man regardless of his age or if he is playing a cowboy, boxing coach or cop. Although this is the first film I've seen with Clint Eastwood playing a rogue cop, he wasn't unlike any of the famous cowboy characters who proceeded him. Not to say he wasn't good, but he wasn't different either.

Andrew Robinson was far more convincing as the psychopathic Scorpio killer. Despite being a complete unknown, he play the role so brilliantly that he struggled in escaping the shadow of the character. Thankfully, he did in the nineties, as he went onto have a prominent supporting role in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

It was an interesting dynamic between the two lead actors with Eastwood acting as the old hand and Andrew Robinson, the newcomer, but he held his own well in this slick and punchy thriller. It was another triumph from Don Siegel who gave us another tense and tight film.

Yes, it has Eastwood acting the same as he always does, but don't let that put you off what was a great film with a terrific turn from Andrew Robinson.

Frailty review

 Number 963 on the top 1000 films of all time is Bill Paxton's 2001 psychological thriller 'Frailty.'

An adult Adam Meiks (Matthew McConaughey) wanders into an FBI office and confesses to agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) that his brother Fenton is the mysterious "God's Hand" killer. Afterwards, he recounts how as children, he and Fenton were subjected to their father's (played by Bill Paxton) twisted delusion about how he was on a mission from God to kill demons disguised as normal people.

Spoilers to follow

Frailty marked Bill Paxton's directorial debut. It was certainly creepy and thrilling with a great performance from Matthew  McConaughey, but it was all predicated on a rather flimsy premise. Bill Paxton's character says that he was randomly visited by an angel sending him on a mission to rid the world of its demons.

I found this less than convincing. Yes, he is a single father and widower, but I saw little to suggest that he would just snap like this. His character was missing some much--needed backstory as to why he would become a deluded serial killer. It might have made more sense if he was under a lot of stress, but we can see that he has a happy and healthy relationship with his two sons. Furthermore, there isn't any distinct catalyst that pushes him over the edge. While fixing a car at work, an angel randomly appears in a vision telling him to kill demons and he's all like "yeah, sure thing."

Things remain unconvincing as the story heads toward a conclusion that seemed like it was being too clever for its own good. In my summary, I identified Matthew McCongaughey's character as Adam, but this is only revealed at the film's ending. Hitherto, we were led to believe that he is actually Fenton who is reporting on his brother's murders. As children, their father's madness drives a wedge between the two brothers with Adam becoming his father's disciple and Fenton his opponent.

This culminates in Fenton ultimately killing his father rather than continuing to participate in the murders. We assume that his dad uses his dying breath to tell Adam to continue his legacy, which he does to some extent, but it is later revealed that the God's Hand murders are completely unrelated. This made little sense. Why have two different sets of murders? Surely, it was more logical for Adam to only be investigated for the demon killings.

Sure this film was entertaining, if rather joyless, but it was certainly not without its flaws.

Memories of Murder review

 Number 213 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Bong Jong-Hoo's 2003 South Korean neo-noir crime thriller 'Memories of Murder.'

Park Doo-man (Song Kang-ho) and Kim Roi-ha (Cho Yong-koo) are police detectives in 1986 Hwaseong who are investigating a string of grisly rapes and murders. They are soon joined by the Seoul hotshot Seo Tae-yoon (Kim Sang-kyung.)

This was a convincing thriller. It was tense, gripping with plenty of plot-twists along the way. Granted it was complicated and convoluted at times, but as such is the nature with these films. Bong makes great use of the weather and music to really up the tension. There were great sequences like when the detectives chase a suspect through the backstreets of Hwaseong.

As is common for thrillers, many of the key scenes took place at night and in the pouring rain, which certainly built the suspense. And one of the biggest clues that cracks the case is a radio song that is always requested to play while the murders take place.

However, there was something stopping me from really engaging with it and that was the interpersonal dynamics between Park, Kim and Seo. Their constant unprofessionalism and squabbling really got on my nerves after a while. I get it. Park and Kim are resentful of having an outsider come help them. They neither want or need their help, but for the greater good they must work together. It is quickly implied that Park and Kim are out of their depths. Their small police department doesn't have the resources or funds to successfully complete this investigation.

But their constant in-fighting made them seem incredibly amateurish. I had no confidence that they would find the true killer especially when they resort to beating confessions out of their suspects. I get that they're from the school of flawed, psychologically-damaged, rough-around-the-edges, willing to break the rules to get the job done, police detectives, but it was all too much. They weren't very likeable and I wasn't too bothered if they would successfully apprehend the killer. Rather than catching the killer, they just get even more people killed like their initial suspect.

And *spoilers*

they don't. Despite having three key suspects, including the most likely candidate Park Hyeon-gu, the case remains frustratingly unsolved. Having the killer escape was refreshing to see. In many thrillers, it's expected that after some ordeals and struggles, the cops would eventually catch the murderer and everything would wrap up nicely. Maybe not with a pretty pink bow, but nicely enough. However, that isn't the case here. And I quite liked this ending. It felt painfully realistic. Sadly, in real life, many murders do go unsolved, because the killers are never caught. They do escape.

Despite the rather unlikeable main characters, I still think Memories of Murder is worth a watch. It's a gripping thriller with a refreshing ending.

Monster review

 Number 998 on the top 1000 films of all time is the true crime biopic Monster.

Based on the shocking true story, Monster focusses on Eileen Warnoss (Charlize Theron.) She is a prostitute in Daytona Beach, Florida, who begins a killing spree after her 'John' Vincent Corey (Lee Tergesen) rapes and tries to kill hjer. Warnoss also forms a toxic relationship with the young Selby (Christina Ricci,) a young, gay woman living in a repressive, Christian household.

True Crime is a genre that has always been popular. Over a century later, we are still speculating over the true identity of Jack the Ripper, the movie 'Zodiac' immortalises the Zodiac Killer's crimes and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was inspired by the crimes of murderer and grave-robber, Ed Gein. However, it is also a genre that's come under a lot of scrutiny. The recent Netflix show about Jeffrey Dahmer was criticised for its romanticisation of Dahmer and for how it retraumatised the families of his victims.

You can argue that, to some extent, Monster romanticises Warnosses' crimes. It initially portrays her as a victim who is taking back her power by killing the man who assaults and rapes her. But, conversely, there is nothing romantic about this tale. In fact, it portrays a brutal and gritty perspective into the reality that many prostitutes face every day. Prostitution is largely illegal in the US and it is theoretically legal in the UK - the act itself is legal, but many of its associated acts are not. Neither brothels nor street side solicitation are legal.

Many prostitutes are desperate - coming from broken households or have addiction issues or a greedy pimp to pay. They have little choice, but to follow their Johns and be driven to a remote area where they could be raped and killed - as is the sad reality for some sex workers. The aforementioned Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes, as did Peter Sutcliffe. Perhaps if prostitution was fully legalised and regulated, there wouldn't be so many young, lost women losing their lives.

Charlize Theron was outstanding in the role. She won the best Actress Oscar and I completely understand why. I'm inclined to agree with film critic Roger Ebert's assessment of it being one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. She absolutely embodied Warnoss, portraying the neuroticism and the agitation to a Tee. Warnoss has always maintained that all of her victims tried to help her and she acted in self-defence. Theron brought a lot more nuance than that to the role. She portrays Warnoss as neither a helpless victim or a cold-blooded killer, but a psychologically damaged young woman in desperate search for human connection. She attempts to go legitimate, but due to her past reputation, she's laughed out of every job she applies for. Perhaps if there wasn't such a stigma behind prostitution, Eileen Warnoss' killing spree might have been avoided.

Of course, I'm not justifying Warnoss' actions, but highlighting the morally grey that Theron exhibited. She kills her first John in self-defence, but her last murder was completely unprovoked. Her last victim did not deserve to die. And this raises more moral questions. Do we ever have the right to take the law into our own hands? Warnoss thinks we do. And Theron just disappeared into the character. She was unrecognisable.

Christina Ricci was great as well. She is best-known for playing kooky, off-the-wall characters, like Wednesday Adams, so it was great to see her play a more human role. Like Eileen, she comes from a troubled background. In search of a strong, adult, role model, she latches herself onto Warnoss. The two of them form a toxic, co-dependant relationship. Selby's life is turned upside down by Warnoss' erratic behaviour. And I think you can argue that Warnoss should have taken more personal accountability and stayed away from Selby. As Selby rightly says, she is being used by Warnoss. Certainly, no romanticisation there.

But this was a great film. It is doomy, hard-going, often traumatic, but with an outstanding, Oscar-worthy performance from Charlize Theron.